While you're feeling the psychic vibe, you could go ahead and give them the secret to the Curse of 27...

That crazy chick could sing her ass off; her live from London (she was banned from the US) performance of the prophetic Rehab was nearly as seminal a performance as that of some of her 27 brethren/sistren from back in the day.

There's a lot of extraneous effects of sudden stardom, but there's gotta be an inherent connection in the brain between the talent and the destructo behavior. Sad.

That's because our narcotics economy is not robust enough. The last time she was here, it was the smack equivalent of the entire gulf coast buying toilet paper, water, and batteries before a hurricane. Lohan was reduced to chugging Listerine and recorded a message begging the president to do something about this horrible disaster.

But yeah, you'll note the interrogatory form directed at LR, so I dunno...

You seem to be saying that the first scenario of simple opportunity and environment applies and that there is no brain function/malfunction that produces both brilliance and insanity.

I'm not sure of your scientific creds, but you may be right. Guys may also in some percent of the general population cut their fucking ears off, or blow their brains out after/during a run of some of the most brilliant literature ever penned to paper too, but like I said, I don't know.

On the flip side, there's a whole lot of great, talented artist that DON'T go down in drug induced flames- or at least are able to rehab successfully. The flame out thing may be one of those outliers that tend to overshadow the actual reality of the situation. Most rock stars don't die of od's at 27, most airliners don't crash, ect- but we tend to remember the ones that do.

But given a global population of... hang on... in excess of 6,900,000,000+, you think a couple hundred of those people might be mid 20-somethings who died as a direct result of alcohol or drug abuse today? Were all their lights burning twice as bright? Or were some of 'em maybe just burnouts?

You'll note that you've been a completely insulting knob-gobbler on my blog for two goddam days running. If you're going to send private letters to other people which I am not allowed to respond, use your fucking email account and not my comments section.

I could have said "in my response to LR's comment" which would have been more accurate, and one less diversion to focus on.

And of course everything I have written for the last two goddam days running has been in response to your own gratuitous insults and sneers, culminating in outright misrepresentation in the spittin' image post.

So there was no "private letter" to anyone intended, and obviously you can and do comment however you please on your own Porch. Also you certainly have the option to censor or ban my or anyone else's input here.

Failing that though, I'll engage and respond and defend myself and my positions to the best of my ability, as always.

Amazing, when you think of it, Charlie Parker was a morphine/heroin addict for a lot of his life and managed incredible music despite it. A lot of people of that era followed him into addiction because they thought all that music came out of the heroin, discounting the fact that he practiced 15 hours a day for years. They ended up addicted to heroin but without any talent. Charlie died at 35, IIRC.

Spider Robinson used to do a bit of preaching in a lot of his stories, "What kind of world have we made that creative people are compelled to destroy themselves?" My question was "Really? What the *(@#* is wrong with so many talented people that they're driven to destroy themselves?"

Yes. Doesn't apply. And though Tam has referenced it twice recently (once rightly and once wrongly IMO), neither really does Unc's tag line. It's funny, comforting, and applicable for any artist, especially starving ones. But if blog revenue is significant, it's a bit disingenuous.

"Customer" is more like it; think of a bunch of guys/gals hanging out on the front Porch of the general store playing checkers, solving the world's ills, with a little shouting and cussing mixed in...and occasionally buying drinks and other necessities to sate themselves and help support the proprieter, who happens to be a freaking renaissance woman whose own opinions often deserve and get the old EF Hutton treatment.

If there is not significant revenue, both of these talented people are missing the boat because they supply a product of significant value. As for myself, I buy a round from time to time (I'm due to spring for another), and so should you.

Most blogs are just journals, but some (like those with MILLIONS of visits) are undeniably a business. And like with all businesses there are good days and bad, there are some customers that just ain't worth the trouble (whaddaya lookin' at me for?), and if the fun is gone, even the income can't make it worthwhile; self-employment imparts the ability to walk away at any time, for any reason, and any duration...but necessarily with an eye on the bottom line.

Tam is a strong woman with a brilliant mind and broad business experience, so there is no doubt that she will continue to successfully separate biz from life and maintain the balance of capitalism here on my favorite Porch. There may not always be agreement and warm 'n fuzzy feelings -and who the hell would want that- but as long as I get my perceived money's worth, I'll hang around.

So K-man, you up for some checkers? I'll grab us a couple of cold ones and leave a tenner on Tam's counter.